Animal feed with a soluble fiber and sugar alcohol and method of making and method of feeding

ABSTRACT

An animal feed such as a milk replacer includes a soluble fiber and a sugar alcohol. The milk replacer enhances weight gain, starter intake and reduces weaning time. The method of feeding the animal includes feeding a mixture of a soluble fiber and sugar alcohol. The animal feed may be used as a method of weaning young ruminants such as calves.

CROSS-REFERENCED RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a division of U.S. patent application Ser. No.10/942,156 filed on Sep. 16, 2004, issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,371,401 onMay 13, 2008, the entire contents of which are incorporated herein byreference.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates generally to a method of making an animalfeed and in particular an improved milk replacer having a soluble fiberand a sugar alcohol.

Livestock are generally weaned prior to their ability to consume wholefoods. In the case of dairy cattle, calves may be fed whole milk or amilk replacer until the calves are weaned and ready to consume solidfood. Feeding calves milk replacer is generally preferred since the milkreplacer not only mimics the milk in terms of protein, fat andcarbohydrate content, but also may be fortified with vitamins,medication and other nutritional supplements which benefit the youngcalves. Furthermore, milk replacer is a powder that has been spray driedat high temperatures eliminating disease organisms that may have existedin the ingredients that comprise the milk replacer. The powder form ofthe milk replacer also provides for easy storage.

Young livestock such as calves, piglets, horses, sheep, goats and otherruminants are very susceptible to bacteria that cause scours (diarrhea).Scours can lead to dehydration of the young animal and many studies havebeen conducted that show when young animals have experienced scours,their growth and development is less than animals that have notexperienced scours. Less growth and development, of course, results inless profitability for the farmer.

It has been suggested that adding psyllium to milk replacer may beeffective in reducing scours in calves. Martin J. Fettman, PotentialBenefits of Psyllium Mycelioid Supplementation of Replacement Formulasfor Neonatal Calf Scours, North America, Ed., February 1992, at 247(Fettman Article). The Fettman Article based its opinion upon theproperties of psyllium as well as the effectiveness of psyllium inreducing intestinal disorders in other animals and humans.

The use of psyllium (plantago seed supplement) in animal feed is alsodisclosed in Van Magius, PCT Patent Application No. WO82/02650 (VanMagius patent). The Van Magius patent application describes usingplantago seed supplement to reduce animal stress conditions, prevent ortreat scours, and promote growth.

Further use of a stable suspension of psyllium and the calf milkreplacer has been described in the Miller et al. U.S. Pat. Nos.5,571,542 and 6,406,729. In addition, the use of sorbitol as a feedcomponent for cows is described in the Luhman U.S. Pat. No. 6,440,447.

Weaning of young animals occurs when the liquid feed is withdrawn fromthe diet. Thus, as used herein, “pre-weaning period” refers to theperiod when nutrients are predominantly or entirely supplied in liquidform such as to a calf as part of a liquid feed, and “post-weaningperiod” refers to the period when nutrients are no longer predominantlyor entirely provided to the calf in the form of liquid feed.

Typical liquid feeds for young animals include fluid milk or fluid milkreplacers. In the case of dairy cows fluid milk replacers are frequentlysubstituted in place of fluid milk because fluid milk that is producedby mature, lactating dairy cows is generally more valuable when sold toconsumers or when used to manufacture food products that are sold toconsumers. Thus, fluid milk replacers that are produced to simulatefluid milk are generally substituted in place of fluid milk for feedingyoung calves. Fluid milk replacers may be based upon dairy componentsand non-dairy components that are combined to provide nutrient andpalatability characteristics approximating the nutrient and palatabilitycharacteristics of fluid milk. Milk replacers are typically marketed inpowdered form to avoid the higher transportation and storage costs ofdistributing fluid milk replacer. Powdered milk replacers are mixed withwater prior to use to form fluid milk replacers that are provided to theyoung calves. The formulation and feeding of fluid milk replacers iswell-known in the art.

Ruminants, such as cattle, are commonly bred and raised to produce foodproducts, such as milk and beef, for human consumption. Maturation ofcattle, as evidenced by weight gain, is an important factor that helpsdetermine when a cow is ready to produce milk or is ready for market.Dairy farmers and cattle ranchers are greatly interested in techniquesfor economically achieving enhanced rates of ruminant weight gain sincesuch techniques beneficially reduce milk and beef production costs.

Also, dairy farmers and cattle ranchers recognize that the care andfeeding of cattle both prior to weaning and after weaning play animportant role in determining the amount and quality of productsproduced by the cattle. As an example, the age of dairy cows atfreshening and the onset of lactation may be reduced by modifying thenutrient mix and nutrient composition in feed the dairy cows consume andby inducing the cows to gain weight more quickly during the pre-weaningand post-weaning periods prior to freshening. Also, in cattle ranchingoperations, increasing the rate of weight gain by young cattlebeneficially reduces the time required for producing cattle with a sizethat is suitable for market.

In both dairy operations and ranching operations, it is also generallydesirable to increase the feed efficiency of young ruminants. Thegreater the feed efficiency the less feed required by the ruminant toobtain a unit amount of weight gain.

A major overall desire of dairy farmers and ranchers alike is to reducethe overall cost to produce a product, such as milk or beef, with anacceptable level of quality. Depending upon numerous cost variables,such as the cost of feed, labor costs on the farm or ranch, andequipment and building costs on the farm or ranch, this desired costreduction may be achieved by increasing the rate of weight gain by youngruminants and/or increasing the feed efficiency of young ruminants.Thus, dairy farmers and ranchers, depending upon their particular costvariables, may employ either enhanced rates of weight gain or increasedfeed efficiency or a combination of enhanced rates of weight gain andincreased feed efficiency to reduce the cost of bringing milk and beefto the consumer market.

To complement liquid feeds that are fed to ruminants, such as cattle,prior to weaning, a number of additives and supplements have beendeveloped for feeding calves along with the liquid feed during thepre-weaning period. These additives and supplements have been developedfor a number of different purposes. For example, some additives andsupplements have been developed to generally enhance the health of theyoung calves or help prevent or control development of specificconditions or ailments, such as scours. Additionally, some additives orsupplements have been developed in an attempt to enhance appetite,enhance maturation rate, and/or enhance weight gain.

In this regard, various veterinary pharmaceutical compositions have beendeveloped to help prevent or inhibit development of certain ailments inruminants. Also, numerous vitamin compositions have been developed tohelp enhance the general health of ruminants and/or to help prevent orinhibit development of ailments or conditions in ruminants. Finally, theuse of psyllium has been prescribed for reducing scours in calves. Also,psyllium incorporation in the diet of ruminants has been described forincreasing the rate of weight gain per unit weight of protein that isconsumed by ruminants.

Though the various ruminant feed supplements and additives that havebeen proposed and/or practiced over the years have enhanced the overallknowledge base with respect to ruminant feeding, these feed supplementsand additives, as well as feeding techniques that employ these feedsupplements and additives, have not yet been fully identified,addressed, or optimized options for increasing the rate of weight gainexhibited by ruminants or for increasing the feed efficiency ofruminants. Thus, dairy farmers and ranchers alike are still in need ofnew approaches to feeding ruminants that enhance weight gain rates inruminants and/or increase the feed efficiency of ruminants.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention includes an animal feed such as a milk replacerhaving a soluble fiber and a sugar alcohol and a method of making thesame. The milk replacer enhances weight gain, starter intake and reducesweaning time. The present invention also includes a method of feeding ananimal a mixture of a soluble fiber and a sugar alcohol. The presentinvention further includes a method of making an animal feed thatincludes a soluble fiber and a sugar alcohol. The present invention alsoincludes a method of weaning a ruminant such as a calf by feeding theruminant a soluble fiber and a sugar alcohol. The present invention alsoincludes a calf milk replacer containing an effective amount of psylliumand a sugar alcohol for reducing weaning time.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

It has been found that an animal feed such as a calf milk replacercontaining both a soluble fiber and a sugar alcohol enhances weightgain, starter intake, and reduces weaning time. In addition scourseverity is also reduced. Calves fed an enhanced amount of milk replacerare especially benefited. Although the present invention has been foundvery suitable in weaning calves, the present invention is suitable forall livestock. By livestock is meant agricultural animals such as swine,horses and ruminants such as but not limited to cows, sheep and goats.

Psyllium is the preferred soluble fiber used in the present invention.By soluble fiber is meant that part of plant foods that cannot bedigested or absorbed and that readily disperses in an aqueous solution.Soluble fibers may include gums, hydrocolloides, most pectins, mucilagesand some hemicelluloses. Psyllium is a hemicellulose. Preferably thepsyllium should be in the form of a powder with a fine particle size.The fine particle size helps to disperse and maintain the particles ofpsyllium in solution and helps to enhance the rate of water absorptionand the amount of water absorbed by the psyllium. The psyllium ispreferably fed at approximately 16 grams per day and preferably at leastapproximately 6 grams per day and up to approximately 19 grams per day.The use of psyllium above 19 grams per day may still have the effect ofthe present invention but usage above 19 grams per day is lesseffective.

In the specific embodiment described herein, the psyllium is fed to acalf as a component of a milk replacer. The milk replacer is fed at anenhanced rate to the calf. Preferably, the enhanced feeding rate for themilk replacer is at least about 1.5 pounds of the milk replacer per daybased on the dry weight of the milk replacer during the pre-weaningperiod.

Sugar alcohols useful in the present invention include adonitol;allitol; altritol (D-altritol, L-altritol, and D,L altritol); arabinitol(D-arabinitol, L-arabinitol, and D,L arabinitol); dulcitol (a.k.agalactitol); erythritol; galaxitol; glucitol (D-glucitol, L-glucitol,and D,L glucitol); glycerol; iditol (D-iditol and L-iditol); inositol;isomalt; lactitol; maltitol; mannitol (D-mannitol, L-mannitol, and D,Lmannitol); perseitol; ribitol; rhamnitol; sorbitol; threitol(D-threitol, L-threitol, and D,L threitol); and xylitol. These sugaralcohols may be provided in any combination. All such sugar alcohols incombination with psyllium have the effect of the present invention.Preferably sorbitol is used due to its relative low cost in relation tothe other sugar alcohols. Sorbitol was preferably fed at a rate ofapproximately 5 to 6 grams per day along with the amounts of psylliumdiscussed previously. Sorbitol is consumed preferably at leastapproximately 3 grams per day to have an effect and up to approximately8 grams per day. Amounts of sorbitol ten grams and over per day werefound not to have the same effect as the present invention. Therefore,it is preferred for the animals to consume approximately less than 10 gper day.

The sugar alcohol(s) is fed to the calf as a component of the milkreplacer. The milk replacer includes the animal feed of the presentinvention such as the milk replacer is made by adding the sugar alcoholinto the dry milk replacer (containing psyllium). The milk replacer (nowcontaining the sugar alcohol and psyllium) is then hydrated by thefarmer or rancher for feeding to the calf.

The method of the present invention is described in the followingexample. This example is provided as an illustration of the inventionand is not intended to limit the invention in any way.

EXAMPLE

A total of 56 calves were provided with the milk replacer of the presentinvention in three separate trials. The sugar alcohol used in thesetrials was sorbitol. The calf milk replacer (CMR) used was Cow's Match®from Land O'Lakes, Inc of Arden Hills, Minn. Cow's Match® containsapproximately 1.38% psyllium. The results from the three trials werecombined and are set forth below in Tables 1 through 4. The proceduresfollowed in all three trials were similar.

The calves used in the trials were approximately 3 to 10 days old at thetrial's initiation. Each calf was weighed initially upon arrival andweekly thereafter. Other performance parameters were determined on adaily basis.

As Table 1 set fort below indicates, a significant gain in weightoccurred in the calves in periods 1 and 2. These periods correspond tothe first two weeks of the trials. In addition to the first two periods,the total weight gain for the seven periods for calves fed Cow's Match®with sorbitol showed approximately 7.9% greater increase over the calvesnot fed the sorbitol.

There was also a significantly greater starter intake by the calves fedCow's Match® with sorbitol in periods 2 through 5. Total starter intakeby calves fed Cow's Match® with sorbitol was 17.7% greater than calvesnot fed sorbitol. This was also statistically significant.

TABLE 1 Cow's Match Cow's Match (CMR) (CMR) w/Sorbitol^(A) Item 1 2P-value C.V. No. of Calves 56 56 Initial Wt., lbs. 104.85 104.46 0.64184.28 Initial Ig^(B) 3.75 3.91 0.4341 28.28 Avg. Period Gain, lbs.Period^(C) 1 2.47 4.65 0.0085 121.09 2 7.69 9.79 0.0418 61.61 3 12.7012.86 0.7933 25.34 4 12.44 12.67 0.7075 26.02 5 13.49 14.14 0.2317 20.706 15.17 16.60 0.0188 20.01 7 14.36 13.80 0.5754 37.56 Total 78.32 84.510.0248 17.69 Avg. Period CMR Consumption, lbs.^(D) (DM Basis) Period 110.46 10.77 0.2886 14.84 2 15.10 15.91 0.0840 15.91 3 16.82 16.88 0.79117.32 4 17.39 17.32 0.5502 3.63 5 17.42 17.39 0.8148 3.34 6 17.45 17.490.1914 1.06 7 8.75 8.74 0.3195 0.34 Total 103.37 104.51 0.2209 4.70 Avg.Period Starter Intake^(E), lbs. (DM Basis) Period 1 0.45 0.62 0.1941123.58 2 0.91 1.30 0.0131 75.27 3 1.65 2.27 0.0122 65.84 4 2.81 3.710.0102 56.06 5 4.16 5.30 0.0107 48.79 6 6.74 7.99 0.0519 45.43 7 15.0216.17 0.2619 34.64 Total 31.74 37.35 0.0283 38.65 Average Feed:Gain^(F)1.75 1.71 0.2844 10.57 ^(A)From Neosorb 70/20 (70% active ingredientsorbitol) Roquette America, Gurnee, IL. ^(B)Gram-% as measured by ZincSulfate Turbidity and assigned to 1 of 5 ranges: 0.00-0.49, 0.50-0.99,1.00-1.49, 1.50-2.49, and 2.50 or higher. ^(C)Seven day duration.^(D)Calves were fed 0.9 lbs. CMR/feeding days 1-7, then 1.25 lbs.CMR/feeding days 7-49. CMR twice a day through day 42, then once a daythrough day 49. ^(E)Intense Calf Diet 22 B60, 60 g/ton lasalocid (LandO'Lakes, Inc., Arden Hills, MN). ^(F)Average feed:gain is the amount offeed intake divided by the weight gain of each individual calf. Theindividual values summed and then averaged. Bold face type indicates adifference of P < 0.05.

The calves fed Cow's Match® with sorbitol showed a significant decreasein period 1 in severity of scours (scour score), and the number of scourdays experienced. Data was grouped and considered for the first twoweeks (first two periods) since scouring is most prevalent in the firsttwo weeks. Scour severity was significantly reduced in the first twoweeks for the calves consuming psyllium with sorbitol as compared to thecalves not being fed sorbitol.

TABLE 2 Cow's Match Cow's Match (CMR) (CMR) w/Sorbitol^(A) Item 1 2P-value C.V. Avg. Period Scour Score^(B) Period^(C) 1 1.86 1.61 0.002124.26 2 1.61 1.56 0.5583 27.61 3 1.10 1.09 0.7919 18.63 4 1.05 1.040.6900 11.29 5 1.02 1.04 0.1732 8.63 6 1.00 1.00 0.0000 0.00* 7 1.001.01 0.1563 1.89 Avg. 2 wk 1.73 1.58 0.0286 21.51 Avg. 7 wk 1.23 1.190.0919 10.63 Avg. Period Scour Days^(D) Period 1 4.43 3.25 0.0018 50.672 3.41 3.30 0.8030 67.53 3 0.66 0.61 0.8305 208.36 4 0.36 0.29 0.6420252.20 5 0.11 0.27 0.1732 330.88 6 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00* 7 0.00 0.040.1563 741.50 Total 2 wk 7.84 6.55 0.0515 48.02 Total 7 wk 8.96 7.750.1764 56.50 ^(A)From Neosorb 70/20 (70% active ingredient sorbital)Roquette America, Gurnee, IL. ^(B)Scour Score = 1-4 scale; 1 = normal,2-loose, 3 = water separation, 4 = 3 with severe dehydration. ^(C)Sevenday duration. ^(D)Total days with a scour score of 2 or greater *Nodifferences due to no variations within treatments. Bold face typeindicates a difference of P < 0.05.

Although not significantly different, the calves fed sorbitol withpsyllium as indicated in Table 3 below had a 15.9 percent improvement inrespiratory score compared with calves not fed sorbitol but onlypsyllium.

TABLE 3 Cow's Match Cow's Match (CMR) (CMR) w/Sorbitol^(A) Item 1 2P-value C.V. Avg. Period Respiratory Scores^(B) period^(C) 1 0.36 0.140.2119 361.24 2 1.50 1.13 0.3288 154.12 3 1.45 1.07 0.3263 159.86 4 1.271.23 0.9260 162.34 5 1.54 1.29 0.5551 158.41 6 0.71 0.54 0.4948 220.73 70.36 0.64 0.3100 296.47 Total 7.18 6.04 0.3215 91.91 ^(A)From Neosorb70/20 (70% active ingredient sorbitol) Roquette America, Gurnee, IL.^(B)Respiratory scores = 1 respiratory day for each day antibiotic givenfor respiratory infections. ^(C)Seven day duration.

As indicated in Table 4 below, a statistically significant greateramount of calves fed sorbitol with psyllium were weaned by day 28.Specifically, five times as many of these calves could have been weanedby day 28 employing the LOL Research Farm criteria as indicated in row 1of Table 4.

TABLE 4 Cow's Match Cow's Match w/Sorbitol^(A) Item 1 2 P-value C.V.Avg. Period Weaning Scores^(B) LOLRF^(C) 28^(F) 4 20 0.0076 269.5535^(G) 25 38 0.1563 148.30 42^(H) 63 77 0.1019 65.81 49^(I) 98 98 1.000013.61 IC^(D) 28 0 4 0.1563 741.50 35 5 9 0.4676 362.94 42 20 38 0.0367156.40 49 91 95 0.4676 27.92 ^(A)From Neosorb 70/20 (70% activeingredient sorbitol) Roquette America, Gurnee, IL. ^(B)Weaning Scores =0-1 scale; 0 = not weaned, 1 = weaned. ^(C)Land O' Lakes Research FarmCriteria = calf assumed weaned when 1.0 lb of dry feed consumed for 2consecutive days. ^(D)Industry Criteria = calf assumed weaned when 1.5lbs dry feed consumed for 3 consecutive days. ^(F)Percentage of calvesassumed weaned by day 28. ^(G)Percentage of calves assumed weaned by day35. ^(H)Percentage of calves assumed weaned by day 42. ^(I)Percentage ofcalves assumed weaned by day 49. Bold face type indicates a differenceof P < 0.05.

A further trial was ran to determine what effect sorbitol without adietary fiber would have on calves fed an intensified diet of calf milkreplacer. Forty-six three to ten day old Holstein bull calves weighingapproximately 90 to 100 pounds were fed an intensified diet of calf milkreplacer. Twenty-four calves were fed a calf milk replacer withoutpsyllium and without sorbitol and twenty-two calves were fed calf milkreplacer without psyllium but with sorbitol. The latter 24 calves werefed 6 grams each per day of sorbitol.

As Table 5 set forth below shows, there was no statistically significantdifference in total weight gain, calf milk replacer consumption, starterfeed intake and average feed:gain (feed efficiency) between those calvesfed no sorbitol and those calves fed 6 g per day of sorbitol.

TABLE 5 Cow's Match Cow's Match (CMR) With Item (CMR) 6.0 g Sorbitol^(A)Treatments 1 2 P-value C.V. No. of Calves 24 22 Initial Weight, 107.51107.63 0.8953 2.94 lbs. Initial Ig^(B) 3.13 3.00 0.6949 34.99 Avg.Period Gain, lbs. Period^(C) 1 1.27 2.96 0.2049 214.98 2 9.23 9.280.9645 42.79 3 12.70 11.40 0.2602 31.97 4 12.62 12.78 0.8840 29.28 513.82 13.28 0.5484 22.09 6 14.72 14.34 0.5902 16.34 7 12.22 12.55 0.809337.61 Total 76.57 76.60 0.9951 20.54 Avg. Period CMR Consumption,lbs.^(D) (DM Basis) Period 1 10.55 10.69 0.8012 16.65 2 14.28 14.470.7771 16.18 3 16.77 15.94 0.1509 11.72 4 17.18 16.48 0.2019 10.88 517.20 17.09 0.7147 5.88 6 17.39 17.24 0.4526 3.69 7 8.75 8.75 0.00000.00* Total 102.11 100.65 0.4807 6.83 Avg. Period Starter Intake^(E),lbs. (DM Basis) Period 1 0.47 0.50 0.8387 98.31 2 1.19 1.08 0.6588 72.163 2.14 1.95 0.5577 53.11 4 3.44 3.14 0.5409 51.31 5 4.86 4.56 0.647546.82 6 6.90 6.80 0.9175 46.33 7 14.27 15.08 0.5922 34.49 Total 33.2833.11 0.9653 39.43 Average Feed:Gain 1.80 1.79 0.8771 12.31 ^(A)FromNeosorb 70/20 (70% active ingredient sorbitol) Roquette America, Gurnee,IL. ^(B)Gram-% as measured by Zinc Sulfate Turbidity and assigned to 1of 5 ranges: 0.00-0.49, 0.50-0.99, 1.00-1.49, 1.50-2.49, and 2.50 orhigher. ^(C)Seven day duration. ^(D)Calves were fed 0.9 lbs. CMR/feedingdays 1-7, then 1.25 lbs. CMR/feeding days 7-49, CMR was fed twice a daythrough day 42, then once a day through day 49. ^(E)Intense Calf Diet 22B60, 60 grams per ton lasalocid, (Willmar, MN). *No differences, due tono variation within treatments.

As Table 6 indicates, there was no statistically significant differentbetween the scour score or scoured days for those calves fed 6 g ofsorbitol per day and those calves fed with no sorbitol.

TABLE 6 Cow's Match Cow's Match With (CMR) Item (CMR) 6.0 g Sorbitol^(A)Treatments 1 2 P-value C.V. Avg. Period Scour Score^(B) Period^(C) 11.80 1.83 0.7396 16.95 2 1.45 1.53 0.3471 19.90 3 1.10 1.09 0.6891 13.334 1.09 1.05 0.4408 15.16 5 1.00 1.03 0.3015 8.29 6 1.00 1.00 0.00000.00* 7 1.00 1.00 0.0000 0.00* Avg. 2 wk 1.62 1.68 0.3905 13.43 Avg. 7wk 1.20 1.22 0.6240 6.87 Avg. Period Scour Days^(D) Period 1 4.71 4.910.6703 33.03 2 2.96 3.32 0.4975 56.93 3 0.67 0.55 0.6860 165.75 4 0.630.36 0.4396 227.07 5 0.00 0.18 0.3015 677.53 6 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00* 70.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00* Total 2 wk 7.67 8.23 0.4596 32.09 Total 7 wk 8.969.32 0.7289 38.29 ^(A)From Neosorb 70/20 (70% active ingredientsorbitol) Roquette America, Gurnee, IL. ^(B)Scour Score = 1-4 scale; 1 =normal, 2 = loose, 3 = water separation, 4 = 3 with severe dehydration.^(C)Seven day duration. ^(D)Total days with a scour score of 2 orgreater *No differences, due to no variation within treatments.

As Table 7 and 8 set forth below indicate, there was no statisticallysignificant difference between respiratory scores and weaning scores forthose calves fed 6 g per day of sorbitol and those calves not fed anysorbitol.

TABLE 7 Cow's Match Cow's Match With (CMR) Item (CMR) 6.0 g Sorbitol^(A)Treatments 1 2 P-value C.V. Avg. Period Respiratory Scores^(B)Period^(C) 1 0.92 1.05 0.8227 197.83 2 1.00 1.05 0.9381 192.92 3 1.041.82 0.2171 148.69 4 2.42 1.82 0.4284 119.06 5 1.17 0.77 0.4367 173.80 60.25 0.77 0.2180 283.43 7 0.21 0.00 0.3440 678.88 Total 7.00 7.27 0.885189.16 ^(A)From Neosorb 70/20 (70% active ingredient sorbitol) RoquetteAmerica, Gurnee, IL. ^(B)Respiratory scores = 1 respiratory day for eachday antibiotic given for respiratory infections. ^(C)Seven day duration.

TABLE 8 Cow's Match Cow's Match With (CMR) Item (CMR) 6.0 g Sorbitol^(A)Treatments 1 2 P-value C.V. Avg. Period Weaning Scores^(B) LOLRF^(C)28^(E) 25 5 0.0554 231.37 35^(F) 46 32 0.3416 126.21 42^(G) 54 73 0.200976.83 49^(H) 100 100 0.0000 0.00* IC^(D) 28 0 0 0.0000 0.00* 35 0 50.3015 677.53 42 29 27 0.8898 162.87 49 83 91 0.4572 39.35 ^(A)FromNeosorb 70/20 (70% active ingredient sorbitol) Roquette America, Gurnee,IL. ^(B)Weaning Scores = 0-1 scale; 0 = not weaned, 1 = weaned. ^(C)LandO' Lakes Research Farm Criteria = calf assumed weaned when 1.0 lb of dryfeed consumed for 2 consecutive days. ^(D)Industry Criteria = calfassumed weaned when 1.5 lbs dry feed consumed for 3 consecutive days.^(E)Percentage of calves assumed weaned by day 28. ^(F)Percentage ofcalves assumed weaned by day 35. ^(G)Percentage of calves assumed weanedby day 42. ^(H)Percentage of calves assumed weaned by day 49. *Nodifferences, due to no variation within treatments.

Data for parameters presented in the Tables above was analyzed using thegeneral linear model (GLM) statistical procedure of SAS™. Statisticalanalysis software for a randomized complete block design that includedboth the particular feed regimen and the week of the test period in themodel statement. The SAS™ statistical analysis software is availablefrom SAS Institute, Inc. of Cary, N.C. Additionally, all data wasanalyzed to determine the mean of the data for each variable underconsideration during the collection period for the particular data.

Additionally, the PDiff function of the GLM statistical procedure wasused to characterize the mean values of the data by providing forcomparisons between mean data values for the calves of differenttreatments for particular test parameters or variables.

P used in the Tables above is a probability value. For purposes ofcomparing data in this document, P values of 0.10, or lower, areconsidered to be statistically significant. Thus, where a P value of0.10 or less is returned for a particular variable, it is assumed thatthe differing results are fully explained by the test regimen, i.e. thepresence or lack of sorbitol.

Also, the Tables include a coefficient of variation (CV) for data in aparticular row. The coefficient of variation is the standard deviationof a particular variable divided by the mean of the variable and thenmultiplied by 100.

Although the present invention has been described with reference topreferred embodiments, workers skilled in the art will recognize thatchanges may be made in form and detail without departing from the spiritand scope of the invention.

What is claimed is:
 1. A calf milk replacer for young calves in dairy orranching operations comprising a soluble plant fiber from at leastapproximately 0.53 percent of the milk replacer on a dry weight basisand sorbitol from approximately 0.26 percent to approximately 1.76percent of the milk replacer on a dry weight basis such that a dailyration of the milk replacer includes at least about 3 grams up to 6grams of sorbitol on a dry weight basis.
 2. The milk replacer of claim 1wherein a ratio of soluble plant fiber to sorbitol is about 5:1.
 3. Themilk replacer of claim 1 wherein a ratio of soluble plant fiber tosorbitol is from about 2:1 to about 6:1.
 4. The milk replacer of claim 1wherein a ratio of soluble plant fiber to sorbitol is about 1:1.
 5. Themilk replacer of claim 1 wherein a ratio of soluble plant fiber tosorbitol is from about 3:5 to about 6:1.
 6. The milk replacer of claim 1wherein the soluble plant fiber is up to approximately 3.35 percent ofthe milk replacer on a dry weight basis.
 7. The milk replacer of claim 1further comprising protein, fat and carbohydrates in an amount thatmimics milk.
 8. The milk replacer of claim 1, wherein the milk replaceris a daily ration from about 1.25 to about 2.5 pounds on a dry basis. 9.A daily ration of calf milk replacer for young ruminants in dairy orranching operations containing from about 1.25 to about 2.5 pounds ofmilk replacer on a dry weight basis, wherein the milk replacer comprisesat least approximately 6 grams of a soluble plant fiber and at leastabout 3 grams to 6 grams of sorbitol on a dry weight basis.
 10. Thedaily ration of calf milk replacer of claim 9 wherein the soluble plantfiber is up to approximately 19 grams of the milk replacer on a dryweight basis.
 11. The milk replacer of claim 1 wherein the soluble plantfiber is a powdered soluble plant fiber.
 12. The daily ration of calfmilk replacer of claim 9 wherein the soluble plant fiber is a powderedsoluble plant fiber.
 13. The milk replacer of claim 1 wherein the milkreplacer includes least about 3 grams to about 5 grams of sorbitol on adry weight basis.
 14. The daily ration of calf milk replacer of claim 9wherein the milk replacer includes least about 3 grams to about 5 gramsof sorbitol on a dry weight basis.